Bombay High Court
Vipin Babanrao Kamble (In Person) vs Payal Vipin Kamble And Other on 2 April, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3662
J Cr.WP-214-2025.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.214 OF 2025
PETITIONER : Shri Vipin S/o Babanrao Kamble,
Aged about 34 years, Occu. - Nil R/o 133,
Vaibhav Nagar, Dighori, Narsala Road,
Dighori, Nagpur.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1 Payal W/o Vipin Kamble,
Age about 29 years, Occu - Service
2 Dnyaneshwar S/o Wamanrao Tale,
Age about 56 years, Occu - Service
3 Mangala W/o Dnyaneshwar Tale,
Age about 45 years, Occu - Housewife
(1 to 3) R/o. 87, Postal Colony, Sai Nagar,
Amravati.
4 Himanshu S/o Sachin Girum,
Age about 29 years, Occu - Service, R/o
Joshi Layout, Aakhada Ward,
Pandharkawda, Yavatmal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Vipin B. Kamble, in person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED : 2nd APRIL, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
06.02.2025 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case
J Cr.WP-214-2025.odt
No.17202 of 2022, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the
petitioner against his wife for the offence punishable under Section
500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The contention of the petitioner appearing in person is
that he has mentioned in para 12 of his complaint, the existence of
the accused in a pornographic video on a pornographic site. He
claims to have asked the accused/respondent No.1 to file a
complaint against the person who appeared with her in the video
clip but she allegedly refused to accompany him to the police
station. In spite of this specific averment, the learned Magistrate has
not issued process against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 66(A), 67(A and B) of the Information Technology
Act, 2000. The further contention is that the application for adding
these Sections in the complaint was also made before the learned
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate without considering the said
application dismissed the complaint holding that there is no
defamation.
4. It is to be noted here that, initially the petitioner filed a
complaint against his wife for the offence punishable under Section
500 of the IPC alleging some obscene words used by her against
J Cr.WP-214-2025.odt
him. The order of learned Magistrate shows that the complaint
discloses that these words were spoken by the accused in the house
and there is no whisper that somebody heard these words.
Therefore, learned Magistrate opined that no offence of defamation
as defined under Section 500 of the IPC has been committed.
Therefore, the complaint came to be dismissed by the impugned
order dated 06.02.2025. It also appears that pending the said
complaint, the application for addition of Sections 66(A), 67(A and
B) of the I.T. Act came to be filed by the petitioner which remained
pending on the file of the learned Magistrate. Reliance is placed by
the petitioner on paragraph 12 of the complaint, which is
reproduced here.
"12. It is submitted that one unidentified person informed
the complainant that on internet on porn site, the pron video of
the accused have been viraled and accordingly, complainant seen
that video on said site and noticed that both are identified. Hence,
the complainant visited to the Hudkeshwar Police Station and
requested to delete the said porn video from internet but the
police state way refused for the best way known to them. It is
submitted that the complainant several times requested to come at
Nagpur and lodge the report against the person who was with the
accused in video clip, but accused refused to come police station
hence police has not taken any cognizance on the said video clip."
5. On perusal of the complaint particularly paragraph 12, it
is revealed that there is no whisper either in paragraph 12 of the
complaint or in the statement of the complainant recorded by the
J Cr.WP-214-2025.odt
learned Magistrate to verify the complaint that it is the
accused/respondent who circulated offensive messages or publishing
content containing sexually explicit acts which are the offenses
punishable under Sections 66(A), 67(A and B) of the I.T. Act.
Hence, no interference is required in the order of the learned
Magistrate dismissing the complaint. The petition is devoid of
merits. Hence, it is dismissed.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Tambe
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2025 10:22:25
